rand0M aXiS

as the radio waves have fried your brain too.

as the radio waves are getting to you.

And my post.

Above post is mine.

Forgot to log in.

Theist. And thanks for your sanity in a sometimes crazy space. My posts are for the openminded devotees, not those whose minds are contaminated with socialism, whose days are numbered.

The man who got things right from the start was, at first glance, an unlikely statesman. He became the leader of the Free World with no experience in foreign policy. Some people thought he was a dangerous warmonger; others considered him a nice fellow but a bit of a bungler. Nevertheless, this California lightweight turned out to have as deep an understanding of communism as Alexander Solzhenitsyn. This rank amateur developed a complex, often counterintuitive strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union, which hardly anyone on his staff fully endorsed or even understood. Through a combination of vision, tenacity, patience and improvisational skill, he produced what Henry Kissinger termed "the most stunning diplomatic feat of the modern era." Or as Margaret Thatcher put it, "Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot." Reagan had a much more sophisticated understanding of communism than either the hawks or the doves. In 1981 he told an audience at the University of Notre Dame: "The West won't contain communism. It will transcend communism. It will dismiss it as some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written." The next year, speaking to the British House of Commons, Reagan predicted that if the Western alliance remained strong it would produce a "march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history." These prophetic assertions -- dismissed as wishful rhetoric at the time -- raise the question: How did Reagan know that Soviet communism faced impending collapse when the most perceptive minds of his time had no inkling of what was to come? To answer this question, the best approach is to begin with Reagan's jokes, which contain a profound analysis of the working of socialism. Over the years Reagan had developed an extensive collection of stories that he attributed to the Soviet people themselves. One of Reagan's favorite stories concerned a man who goes to the Soviet bureau of transportation to order an automobile. He is informed that he will have to put down his money now, but there is a 10-year wait. The man fills out all the various forms, has them processed through the various agencies, and finally he gets to the last agency. He pays them his money and they say, "Come back in 10 years and get your car." He asks, "Morning or afternoon?" The man in the agency says, "We're talking about 10 years from now. What difference does it make?" He replies, "The plumber is coming in the morning." Reagan could go on in this vein for hours. What is striking, however, is that his jokes were not about the evil of communism so much as they were about its incompetence. Reagan agreed with the hawks that the Soviet experiment, which sought to transform human nature and create a "new man," was immoral. At the same time, he saw that it was also basically foolish. Reagan did not need a Ph.D. in economics to recognize that any economy based upon centralized planners dictating how much factories should produce, how much people should consume and how social rewards should be distributed was doomed to disastrous failure. For Reagan the Soviet Union was a "sick bear," and the question was not whether it would collapse, but when. Sick bears, however, can be very dangerous. They tend to lash out. What resources they cannot find at home, they seek elsewhere. Moreover, since we are not discussing animals but people, there is also the question of pride. The leaders of an internally weak empire are not likely to acquiesce to an erosion of their power. They typically turn to their primary source of strength: the military. Appeasement, Reagan was convinced, would only increase the bear's appetite and invite further aggression. Thus he agreed with the anti-Communist strategy for dealing firmly with the Soviets. But he was more confident than most hawks in his belief that Americans were up to the challenge. "We must realize," he said in his first inaugural address, "that...no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." What was most visionary about Reagan's view was that it rejected the assumption of Soviet immutability. At a time when no one else could, Reagan dared to imagine a world in which the Communist regime in the Soviet Union did not exist. It is one thing to envision this happy state, and quite another to bring it about. The Soviet bear was in a ravenous mood when Reagan entered the White House. In the 1970s the Soviets had made rapid advances in Asia, Africa and South America, culminating with the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Moreover, the Soviet Union had built the most formidable nuclear arsenal in the world. The Warsaw Pact also had overwhelming superiority over NATO in its conventional forces. Finally, Moscow had recently deployed a new generation of intermediate-range missiles, the giant SS-20s, targeted at European cities. Reagan did not merely react to these alarming events; he developed a broad counteroffensive strategy. He initiated a $1.5 trillion military buildup, the largest in American peacetime history, which was aimed at drawing the Soviets into an arms race he was convinced they could not win. He was also determined to lead the Western alliance in deploying 108 Pershing II and 464 Tomahawk cruise missiles in Europe to counter the SS-20s. At the same time, Reagan did not eschew arms control negotiations. Indeed, he suggested that for the first time the two superpowers drastically reduce their nuclear stockpiles. If the Soviets would withdraw their SS-20s, the United States would not proceed with the Pershing and Tomahawk deployments. This was called the "zero option." Then there was the Reagan Doctrine, which involved military and material support for indigenous resistance movements struggling to overthrow Soviet-sponsored tyrannies. The administration supported such guerrillas in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua. In addition, it worked with the Vatican and the international wing of the AFL-CIO to keep alive the Polish trade union Solidarity, despite a ruthless crackdown by General Wojciech Jaruzelski's regime. In 1983, U.S. troops invaded Grenada, ousting the Marxist government and holding free elections. Finally, in March 1983 Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a new program to research and eventually deploy missile defenses that offered the promise, in Reagan's words, of "making nuclear weapons obsolete." At every stage Reagan's counteroffensive strategy was denounced by the doves. The "nuclear freeze" movement became a potent political force in the early 1980s by exploiting public fears that Reagan's military buildup was leading the world closer to nuclear war. Reagan's zero option was dismissed by Strobe Talbott, who said it was "highly unrealistic" and offered "more to score propaganda points...than to win concessions from the Soviets." With the exception of support for the Afghan mujahedin, a cause that enjoyed bipartisan support, every other effort to aid anti-Communist rebels fighting to liberate their countries from Marxist, Soviet-backed regimes was resisted by doves in Congress and the media. SDI was denounced, in the words of The New York Times, as "a projection of fantasy into policy." The Soviet Union was equally hostile to the Reagan counteroffensive, but its understanding of Reagan's objectives was far more perceptive than that of the doves. Commenting on the Reagan arms buildup, the Soviet journal Izvestiya protested, "They want to impose on us an even more ruinous arms race." General Secretary Yuri Andropov alleged that Reagan's missile defense program was "a bid to disarm the Soviet Union." The seasoned diplomat Andrei Gromyko charged that "behind all this lies the clear calculation that the USSR will exhaust its material resources...and therefore will be forced to surrender." These reactions are important because they establish the context for Mikhail Gorbachev's ascent to power in early 1985. Gorbachev was indeed a new breed of Soviet general secretary, utterly unlike any of his predecessors, but few have asked why he was appointed by the Old Guard. The main reason is that the Politburo had come to recognize the failure of past Soviet strategies. The Soviet leadership, which initially dismissed Reagan's promise of rearmament as mere saber-rattling rhetoric, seems to have been stunned by the scale and pace of the Reagan military buildup. The Pershing and Tomahawk deployments were, to the Soviets, an unnerving demonstration of the unity and resolve of the Western alliance. Through the Reagan Doctrine, the United States had completely halted Soviet advances in the Third World -- since Reagan assumed office, no more territory had fallen into Moscow's hands. Indeed, one small nation, Grenada, had moved back into the democratic camp. Thanks to Stinger missiles supplied by the United States, Afghanistan was rapidly becoming what the Soviets would themselves later call a "bleeding wound." Then there was Reagan's SDI program, which invited the Soviets into a new kind of arms race that they could scarcely afford, and one that they would probably lose. Clearly the Politburo saw that the momentum in the Cold War had dramatically shifted. After 1985, the Soviets seem to have decided to try something different. It was Reagan, in other words, who seems to have been largely responsible for inducing a loss of nerve that caused Moscow to seek a new approach. Gorbachev's assignment was not merely to find a new way to deal with the country's economic problems but also to figure out how to cope with the empire's reversals abroad. For this reason, Ilya Zaslavsky, who served in the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies, said later that the true originator of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness) was not Mikhail Gorbachev but Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev was widely admired by Western intellectuals and pundits because the new Soviet leader was attempting to achieve the great 20th-century hope of the Western intelligentsia: communism with a human face! A socialism that worked! Yet as Gorbachev discovered, and the rest of us now know, it could not be done. The vices Gorbachev sought to eradicate from the system turned out to be essential features of the system. If Reagan was the Great Communicator, then Gorbachev turned out to be, as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it, the Grand Miscalculator. The hard-liners in the Kremlin who warned Gorbachev that his reforms would cause the entire system to blow up were right. But Gorbachev had one redeeming quality: He was a decent and relatively open-minded fellow. Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader who came from the post-Stalin generation, the first to admit openly that the promises of Lenin were not being fulfilled. Reagan, like Margaret Thatcher, was quick to recognize that Gorbachev was different. Even so, as they sat across the table in Geneva in November 1985, Reagan knew that Gorbachev would be a tough negotiator. Setting aside State Department briefing books full of diplomatic language, Reagan confronted Gorbachev directly. "What you are doing in Afghanistan in burning villages and killing children," he said. "It's genocide, and you are the one who has to stop it." At this point, according to aide Kenneth Adelman, who was present, Gorbachev looked at Reagan with a stunned expression, apparently because no one had talked to him this way before. Reagan also threatened Gorbachev. "We won't stand by and let you maintain weapon superiority over us," he told him. "We can agree to reduce arms, or we can continue the arms race, which I think you know you can't win." The extent to which Gorbachev took Reagan's remarks to heart became obvious at the October 1986 Reykjavik summit. There Gorbachev astounded the arms control establishment in the West by accepting Reagan's zero option. Yet Gorbachev had one condition, which he unveiled at the very end: The United States must agree not to deploy missile defenses. Reagan refused. The press immediately went on the attack. "Reagan-Gorbachev Summit Talks Collapse as Deadlock on SDI Wipes Out Other Gains," read the banner headline in The Washington Post. "Sunk by Star Wars," Time's cover declared. To Reagan, however, SDI was more than a bargaining chip; it was a moral issue. In a televised statement from Reykjavik he said, "There was no way I could tell our people that their government would not protect them against nuclear destruction." Polls showed that most Americans supported him. Reykjavik, Margaret Thatcher said, was the turning point in the Cold War. Finally Gorbachev realized that he had a choice: Continue a no-win arms race, which would utterly cripple the Soviet economy, or give up the struggle for global hegemony, establish peaceful relations with the West, and work to enable the Soviet economy to become prosperous like the Western economies. After Reykjavik, Gorbachev seemed to have settled on this latter course. Additional Sources: www.psywarrior.com teachpol.tcnj.edu www.gavle.to www.reagan.dk history.acusd.edu

With Operation Urgent Fury -- the invasion of Grenada -- two decades ago, Cold War history began a dramatic turn that would lead in less than a decade to the demise of an empire. Ronald Reagan's clarity of vision, tenacity and unwavering beliefs led to the dismantling of America's most formidable foe. Twenty years ago, Ronald Reagan ordered American troops to invade Grenada and liberate the island from its ruling Marxist dictator. By itself this would have been an insignificant military action: Grenada is a tiny island of little geopolitical significance. But in reality the liberation of Grenada was a historic event, because it signaled the end of the Brezhnev Doctrine and inaugurated a sequence of events that brought down the Soviet empire itself. The Brezhnev Doctrine stated simply that once a country went Communist, it would stay Communist. In other words, the Soviet empire would continue to advance and gain territory, but it would never lose any to the capitalist West. In 1980, when Reagan was elected president, the Brezhnev Doctrine was a frightening reality. Between 1974 and 1980, while the United States wallowed in post-Vietnam angst, 10 countries had fallen into the Soviet orbit: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada and Afghanistan. Never had the Soviets lost an inch of real estate to the West. The liberation of Grenada changed that. For the first time, a Communist country had ceased to be Communist. Surely the Politburo in Moscow took notice of that. The Soviet leadership, we now know from later accounts, also noted that in Ronald Reagan the Americans had elected a new kind of president, one who had resolved not merely to "contain" but actually to "roll back" the Soviet empire. Containment. Rollback. These sound like words from a very different era, and in a sense they are. With the sudden and spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union, we find ourselves in a new world. But how we got from there to here is still poorly understood. Oddly there is very little debate, even among historians, about how the Soviet empire collapsed so suddenly and unexpectedly. One reason for this, perhaps, is that many of the experts were embarrassingly wrong in their analysis and predictions about the future of the Soviet empire. It is important to note that the doves or appeasers (the forerunners of today's antiwar movement) were wrong on every point. They showed a very poor understanding of the nature of communism. For example, when Reagan in 1983 called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," columnist Anthony Lewis of The New York Times became so indignant at Reagan's formulation that he searched through his repertoire for the appropriate adjective: "simplistic,sectarian,dangerous,outrageous." Finally Lewis settled on "primitive...the only word for it." Writing during the mid-1980s, Strobe Talbott, then a journalist at Time and later an official in the Clinton State Department, faulted officials in the Reagan administration for espousing "the early fifties goal of rolling back Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," an objective he considered unrealistic and dangerous. "Reagan is counting on American technological and economic predominance to prevail in the end," Talbott scoffed, adding that if the Soviet economy was in a crisis of any kind "it is a permanent, institutionalized crisis with which the U.S.S.R. has learned to live." Historian Barbara Tuchman argued that instead of employing a policy of confrontation, the West should ingratiate itself with the Soviet Union by pursuing "the stuffed-goose option -- that is, providing them with all the grain and consumer goods they need." If Reagan had taken this advice when it was offered in 1982, the Soviet empire would probably still be around today. The hawks or anti-Communists had a much better understanding of totalitarianism, and understood the necessity of an arms buildup to deter Soviet aggression. But they too were decidedly mistaken in their belief that Soviet communism was a permanent and virtually indestructible adversary. This Spenglerian gloom is conveyed by Whittaker Chambers' famous remark to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1948 that in abandoning communism he was "leaving the winning side for the losing side." The hawks were also mistaken about what steps were needed in the final stage to bring about the dismantling of the Soviet empire. During Reagan's second term, when he supported Mikhail Gorbachev's reform efforts and pursued arms reduction agreements with him, many conservatives denounced his apparent change of heart. William F. Buckley urged Reagan to reconsider his positive assessment of the Gorbachev regime: "To greet it as if it were no longer evil is on the order of changing our entire position toward Adolf Hitler." George Will mourned that "Reagan has accelerated the moral disarmament of the West by elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy." No one, and least of all an intellectual, likes to be proved wrong. Consequently there has been in the past decade a determined effort to rewrite the history of the Cold War. This revisionist view has now entered the textbooks, and is being pressed on a new generation that did not live through the Soviet collapse. There is no mystery about the end of the Soviet Union, the revisionists say, explaining that it suffered from chronic economic problems and collapsed of its own weight. This argument is not persuasive. True, the Soviet Union during the 1980s suffered from debilitating economic problems. But these were hardly new: The Soviet regime had endured economic strains for decades, on account of its unworkable Socialist system. Moreover, why would economic woes in themselves bring about the end of the political regime? Historically, it is common for nations to experience poor economic performance, but never have food shortages or technological backwardness caused the destruction of a large empire. The Roman and Ottoman empires survived internal stresses for centuries before they were destroyed from the outside through military conflict. Another dubious claim is that Mikhail Gorbachev was the designer and architect of the Soviet Union's collapse. Gorbachev was undoubtedly a reformer and a new kind of Soviet leader, but he did not wish to lead the party, and the regime, over the precipice. In his 1987 book Perestroika, Gorbachev presented himself as the preserver, not the destroyer, of socialism. Consequently, when the Soviet Union collapsed, no one was more surprised than Gorbachev.

The Big Ten They’re a good thing. Much has been written about the Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. Perry, which has at its center a monument of the Ten Commandments that has stood between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court in Austin since 1961. Thomas Van Orden wants to remove it. The state of Texas wants to keep it right where it is. The Ten Commandments should stay right where they are — in all cases. Various monuments, structures, and statues of the Ten Commandments can be found all over the U.S., including some highly visible spots in Washington, D.C. Courtesy of “God in the Temples of Government,” a photo essay by Carrie Devorah in Human Events (the crusading national conservative weekly), we are reminded of three prominent monuments in the capital city: Moses and the Ten Commandments can be found in the rotunda of the Library of Congress, on the rear façade of the U.S. Supreme Court, and inside the Supreme Court’s courtroom. The Ten Commandments are literally chiseled into the American way of life. But there is a campaign going on that would rid this country of any and all religious references. This is part of the ongoing culture war that would stop religious expression in politics and the public square, even though we remain the most religious of all the major industrial countries. Fortunately, brave people like state attorney general Greg Abbott, who recently argued the Texas position in Van Orden v. Perry before the Supremes, want to keep it that way. Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since. The Ten Commandments provide the very foundation of our nation’s legal code. They also make up the basis of the moral values that thankfully guide us in our everyday lives. I have a suspicion, however, that too many folks forget what’s on that list of commandments, or maybe never learned them in the first place. And even if we do know the Ten Commandments by heart, it never hurts to read them through and contemplate them from time to time. So here’s all ten: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Honor thy mother and father. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. I have a few direct questions for you: Is it such a bad thing to think about not killing, not stealing, not lying, and not committing adultery? Is it so bad to talk about honoring one’s parents? Or to think about a power greater than oneself — about God or some higher deity? Or to set aside just one day a week as a spiritual day, separate from the material strivings of the other six days? Attempting to live by these moral and religious values is a worthy endeavor. No one of us is perfect; that role is for God alone. But if we strive for better values in our day-to-day lives, if we seek to meet the age-old standards of goodness and honesty, if we try to help our neighbors in all we do, won’t we be better people, even if our imperfections cause us to fall short? I should think that anyone who strolls the grounds of the Texas state capitol, and for one moment stops to read the Ten Commandments on the monument that Mr. Abbott is trying to keep in place, will be the better for it. Moral commandments — like most spiritual thoughts in this day and age — seem too few and far removed from our usual toils and tribulations. But deep down inside we all have a desire to live as better citizens, better spouses, better parents, better co-workers, and better friends. An occasional reminder as to how to do this cannot be a bad thing. No — keeping the Ten Commandments in the public square must perforce be a good thing.

Pakistan rape sparks rally of thousands KHALID TANVEER Associated Press MULTAN, Pakistan - Thousands of women rallied in eastern Pakistan on Monday to demand justice and protection for a woman who said she was gang-raped at the direction of a village council, after a court ordered the release of her alleged attackers. The victim, Mukhtar Mai, also attended the rally in Multan, a major city in the eastern province of Punjab. Waving signs and chanting, the demonstrators, many of them from nearby villages, joined the rally. Organizer Farzana Bari said more than 3,000 women were at the event. "We will fight for justice for Mukhtar Mai," the women chanted during the rally, while others carried placards reading: "Give protection to Mukhtar Mai." Some 200 policemen observed the demonstration, which ended peacefully. In June 2002, Mai said she was raped by four men on the orders of a village council that wanted to punish her family. Mai's brother was accused of having sex with a woman from a more prominent family, though Mai's family says the allegations were fabricated to cover up a sexual assault against the boy by several men. Mai, a 33-year-old school teacher, went public about her ordeal, drawing international media attention to widespread crimes against women in ultraconservative Pakistan. The government also pledged to track down her attackers. A court later sentenced six men to death for Mai's rape. An appeals court overturned the convictions of five of the men last week, citing lack of evidence, and reduced the other man's sentence to life in prison. The government and Mai, who has expressed fears the acquitted men might target her for revenge, have said they will appeal to the Supreme Court. Bari said her group, Pattan, a charity working with women in rural communities, will stand by Mai until she gets justice. "We are with every woman who is oppressed and who face injustices," said Bari.

Yes, Very wreckless

Around 3 - 30 Hz. Used to communicate with submarines. Only problem is, at that wavelength the antennas have to be miles long. Michigan has hundreds of square miles dedicated to the network. Data transmission is ve-r-r-r-ry slo-o-o-o-o-o-w at that freq.

REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: * To what extent was the establishing of the details of Vedic Culture regarding women an integral part of Srila Prabhupada's mission vis-à-vis women preaching and serving alongside men in spreading the sankirtana movement? * Is there a difference between Vedic tradition and Vaisnava tradition? * How much of what we consider Vedic to be is truly Vedic? How much was influenced by the British in the 19th Century? How much of our viewpoints are influenced by our own conditioning? Attendees were Ravindra Svarupa Das, Malati Dasi, Laxmimoni Dasi, Bhaktarupa Das, Sudharma Devi Dasi, Devakinandana Das, Anuttama Das, Rasaraj Das, and Basu Ghosh Das. ===================================== I wish I could have been a fly on the wall and watched that unfold........

INDIA: COOKING FUELS POLLUTION Most of the sooty pollution that creates a chronic brown plume over India and the Indian Ocean originates from cooking fires in which the fuels are dung or wood, according to an analysis published in the journal Science. This kind of pollution contributes to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, mainly of women and children, and also alters climate, cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere in ways that can alter patterns of drought and rainfall, experts said. The authors of the study, from the Indian Institute of Technology and the University of California, Los Angeles, said many benefits could result from reducing such emissions by spreading cleaner cooking methods. ---Andrew C. Revkin (NYT)

I recall a similar exchange with Carl Sagan in Chicago. Attempted to give him a Srimad Bhagavatam (second canto if I recall correctly -- time has also affected my memory...) and he started laughing and asked if I really believed in God.

<center></center> A diver uses a knife to uncover a stone wall. Indian archaeologists have found what they believe are undersea 'stone structures' that could be the remains of an ancient port city off India's southern coast.(AFP/ASI) MAHABALIPURAM, India (AFP) - Indian archaeologists have found what they believe are undersea "stone structures" that could be the remains of an ancient port city off India's southern coast, officials say. The archaeologists learnt of the structures after locals reported spotting a temple and several sculptures when the sea pulled back briefly just before deadly tsunamis smashed into the coastline December 26. Divers discovered the stone remains close to India's famous beachfront Mahabalipuram temple in Tamil Nadu state, Alok Tripathi, an official from the state-run Archeological Survey of India (ASI), said Saturday. "We've found some stone structures which are clearly man-made. They're perfect rectangular blocks, arranged in a clear pattern," he said aboard the Indian naval vessel "Ghorpad". Tripathi headed a diving expedition after the tsunamis uncovered the remains of a stone house, a half-completed rock elephant and two exquisite giant granite lions, one seated and another poised to charge in Mahabalipuram, 70 kilometers (45 miles) south of Madras. The objects were found when the towering waves withdrew from the beach, carrying huge amounts of sand with them. Experts say the tsunami "gifts" discovered in Mahabalipuram belong to the Hindu Pallava dynasty that dominated much of South India from as early as the first century BC to the eighth century AD. Mahabalipuram is recognized as the site of some of India's greatest architectural and sculptural achievements. Since February 11, Tripathi's team of a dozen divers have been scouring the seabed, diving three to eight meters (yards), to examine rocks with "geometrical patterns." "European mariners and travelers, who visited Mahabalipuram in the 18th century, wrote about the existence of seven pagodas (temples) here," he said. "Some believed it was a myth, others thought six of the pagodas sank under the sea while one remained as a rock temple on the shore. "In fact, some scholars believe the entire city, barring a few rock structures and carvings, were submerged under the sea." The divers have brought up pottery pieces and small stone blocks from the seabed. "We'll study everything to gain an insight into early settlement in this area," said Tripathi. Indian Navy commodore Brian Thomas said "extensive diving" had taken place east of Mahabalipuram's shore temple with underwater cameras used to record findings. "The sea was often rough due to the wind and underwater visibility was very poor," Thomas told AFP. "But we found that the area was strewn with a number of blocks of various shapes and sizes." The findings were expected to be presented at an international seminar on maritime archeology in New Delhi between March 17-19, archaeology officials said. Tripathi said experts would study how old the rocks were to fix the date of the ancient civilisation at Mahabalipuram. Cartographers say the waves which left nearly 16,400 dead or missing in southern India and the country's far-flung Andaman and Nicobar islands have redrawn the entire Mahabalipuram coastline. One of a clutch of temples is partially submerged. But the magnificent eighth century Shore Temple, a UN World Heritage Site famed for its carvings representing characters from Hindu scriptures, survived the sea's fury. This was thanks to a move by India's then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, who ordered that huge rocks be piled around the building to protect it from sea erosion after visiting the site in the late 1970s, officials say.

http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue234/guest_column.htm Reason over reaction: What should be prescribed course of action for international community? Nepali Times ^ | 02/28/2005 | DIPTA SHAH With the royal proclamation of February First, Nepal has once again been thrust into the international limelight. The question at hand is not whether to support or oppose King Gyanendra’s actions. What is lacking is a range of perspectives emanating from those to whom political developments in Nepal matter the most: Nepali citizens. And what should be the prescribed course of action for the international community? Let’s dispense with some of the more common misperceptions that mainstream media has capitalised on. First, media reports have been rife with official statements from foreign governments which have bluntly demanded the immediate restoration of previously established ‘democracy’ in Nepal. Those who to the underlying ideals of democracy (and comprehend not only democratic freedoms but also associated responsibilities) can’t seriously insist on the re-establishment of a set of principles that ceased to exist years before February First. What Nepal had was a judiciary with the power to indict but not prosecute, political parties with the ability to incite but not be held accountable, security forces with a broad mandate to protect but no clear objectives with which to execute. Surely, when responsible world leaders call for the restoration of Nepal’s system of ‘multiparty democracy’, one would hope that they are not implying a move towards the status quo, ex-ante? Second, the right to assemble, freedom of speech, and the right against preventive detention (while extremely important) are not the only principles enshrined under the broader democratic umbrella. The right to peaceful co-existence (without fear of intimidation), the right to education (without political disruption), the right to a proper childhood (without being subject to indoctrination) these are also fundamental rights that every Nepali citizen is entitled to, independent of the prevailing system of governance. Third, it would be misleading for the international community to formulate its course of action based on the assumption that a minority two percent (representative of Nepal’s relatively educated and politically savvy elite) accounts for the collective views of a nation of 24 million. This is especially true when no consensus exists within that two percent itself. Also erroneous is the underlying assumption that the ‘representative elite’ is guided purely by populist concerns. No more need be said on this except to note their self-serving nature and absolute unwillingness to even begin to grapple with the problems of the country. And although it is unfair to group all Nepali politicians in this inept category, it would also be a great disservice to imply that there are more than a handful of respectable leaders. While the prospect of near-authoritarian rule (for the interim) is alarming, one must take into account the alternative: Maoist totalitarianism. Clearly, endorsing Maoism is not a viable option by national or international standards. This is even more the case when considering the Indian position that has not swayed from its declaration of the Maoists as terrorists and the US government’s addition of the Maoists to its terrorist watch list. India simply can’t afford to alienate Nepal at this critical juncture. If New Delhi was to abandon Kathmandu, all bets would be off including certain arms procurement covenants between the two countries, which may then leave Nepal with no option but to deal with the Chinese, a nightmare for both India and the US. More seriously, disengaging Nepal now would open the door to the Maoists’ long-sought Compact Revolutionary Zone through which Indian and Nepali Maoists function across national and state boundaries in much the manner of the communists in Southeast Asia in their fight against the Americans during the 1970s. All of Nepal’s well-wishers want genuine multi-party democracy in Nepal. There is no ambiguity or ulterior motive. But the time to forward this agenda will undoubtedly come and will be accomplished with support, but not direct involvement from the international community. That time however, is not now. And lobbying to force the king to reverse his decision, threatening to cut off foreign aid to Nepal, and alienating the new government are not means with which to ensure a democratic future for Nepal. If we can’t unite to guarantee the sovereign integrity of our nation, there is no honour, no pride in calling ourselves Nepalis.

Boy 'crushed by giant snowball' 28 February 2005 A 10-year-old boy died after being crushed by a giant snowball, it was reported today. Police refused to name the youngster or release any further details of the incident, but the boy was named locally as Peter Strang, according to the Daily Record newspaper. The accident happened at about 5.45pm on Saturday in Torphins, Aberdeenshire, Grampian Police said. The death was "the result of a tragic accident", a police spokesman said. The primary school pupil apparently died playing with a friend after a "giant snowball" rolled down a hill and engulfed him. Local minister Norman Nicoll told the paper: "It seems there was a giant snowball the boys had made themselves. "Apparently it rolled and unfortunately Peter was caught under it. "The boys had just gone out there to play and then something like this happens. It's very difficult to find words to explain it all." There were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident and a report is to be sent to the Procurator Fiscal. The boy's parents, Hamish and Carol, were too upset to comment.

<center><h3>NASA Tags on to India's Moon Mission</h3></center> <center></center> <center>Lunar signal</center> Bangalore, Feb. 26: Nasa is planning to ride piggyback on India’s unmanned mission to the moon in 2007. The US space agency figures among organisations keen to join the Indian Space Research Organisation’s orbiter, Chandrayan. “We have got a request from Nasa to place their payload in our moon mission,” P.S. Goel, director of Isro’s satellite centre, said today. “We have begun discussions with them, but its implementation will depend on bilateral agreements (between India and the US),” he added. Nasa wants to fly a set of instruments, including a Mini-Synthetic Aperture Radar on board Isro’s orbiter. The Indian space agency has picked a payload from Bulgaria to monitor radiation in outer space, Goel said. Isro’s 525-kg orbiter, scheduled for launch by the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) in 2007, will hover at 100 km over the moon to garner data on mineral resources and water. The scientific data will also help address questions on life in other parts of the universe and the origin of the universe, Isro scientists said. Isro chairman G. Madhavan Nair said design studies for Chandrayan as well as a 34-metre antenna have been completed. The antenna will be designed by the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Nair added. The organisation will acquire 100 acres outside Bangalore to establish the ground station for receiving data from the moon mission, he said. On the milestones lying ahead this year, the Isro chairman said four satellites — two from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre at Sriharikota and two from Kourou, French Guyana — will be placed in orbit. Isro’s advanced remote sensing satellite Cartosat-1 will be hoisted into space by PSLV from Sriharikota in April. “The satellite has been integrated and final tests are being conducted. The launch vehicle is also under progress,” Nair said. Insat-4A, for DTH applications, will be placed in orbit by an Ariane rocket of the European launch agency from Kourou in French Guyana in May or June. Cartosat-2, a remote sensing satellite from Sriharikota, and the Insat-4C communication satellite from Kourou will follow in the second half of the year, the Isro chairman said.

"the truth is out there" <font size="1">apologies to Mulder...

Peter Jennings, ABC and serious in the same paragraph? LOL! Well, it should be more serious than Art Bell I suppose...

Not yet published on the Catholic Family News website: During the height of the U.S. homosexual priest sex abuse scandal several years ago, Catholic News Service writer John Thavis revealed the largely unknown fact that in 1961 Pope John XXIII had approved in writing a ban on homosexual ordinations to the priesthood. Thavis said he was told the ban contained in this 1961 document is still in effect. The document was entiltled "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders", published by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for Religious. At the time of its publication, the document was referred to by the Sacred Congregation for Religious as "a matter of public law". The ban, as published in The Canon Law Digest, Vol.5, 1963, Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, stated: "Advancement to religious vows and ordinations should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers..." (See also CFN Jn 2002). In the December 17, 2004 edition of the Los Angeles Archdiocesan publication, the Tidings, the same John Thavis revealed, in effect, that a recent Church effort to keep and enforce the 1961 Papal ban had been rejected, and that a revised Vatican draft document, due for release by early fall, 2005, would in effect allow homosexuals to be ordained as Catholic priests. Homosexual Victory Imminent? Unless the revised Vatican draft document is rejected by Pope John Paul II and other Church leaders before its early fall release, it will give a great victory to the strong pro-homosexual faction inside the Cahtholic Church and to the homosexual movement wouldwide. The Catholic Church's apparent "approval" of homosexual priests will create great pressure on other religions to weaken their opposition to ordaining homosexual pastors. It will give the homosexual lifestyle the apparent seal of approval of the Catholic Church, despite any staement to the contrary... Some Bishops Opposed Banning Homosexuals In his April 18, 2003 article, Allen [John Allen, Jr., "All The Pope's Men" author and NCR writer] wrote: "A source close to the drafting process told NCR that the new document regarding seminaries (1961) was 'in deep trouble' in part because some bishops, including some Americans, have raised objections." This source told Allen: "They're saying they don't want to drive the problem underground and make being gay a clandestine thing in the priesthood... They feel it's better to have it out in the open..." In other words, Allen was saying that some Bishops, including some Americans, approve of openly homosexual men in the priesthood. The view of these bishops has prevailed in the most recent draft document, which will soon open the Catholic priesthood to homosexual men including openly homosexual men, unless Catholics and others protest to Pope john Paul II, College of Cardinals members and other bishops around the world, and urge others to protest... ...[sidebar to article, pg 16]... Proposed Letter to the Pope Pope John Paul II Apostolic Palace 00120 Vatican City State, Europe Re: Enforce 1961 Papal Ban against admitting homosexuals to priesthood and religious life. Your Holiness: I strongly oppose a new Vatican draft allowing homosexual ordinations scheduled for early fall, 2005. The "closed-door" April 2-5, 2003 symposium on the acceptance of homosexuals to the priesthood and religious life was an outrageous, one-sided, pro-homosexual farce. I strongly urge you to reject this revised Vatican draft admitting homosexuals to ordination. I stongly urge you to support and renew explicilty the ban on all homosexual ordinations approved by Pope John XXIII on January 23, 1961. I will not make financial contributions to any diocesan institution whatsoever if the Vatican allows homosexuals to be ordained. The militant homosexual faction inside the Church is destroying the Church. I urge you to stop this destruction! Please affirm the 1961 ban on homosexual ordinations by your predecessor Pope John XXIII. Thank you and God Bless you. Sincerely, Name, address Also Send to: Papal Secretary Stanislaw Dziwisz Apostolic Palace, 00120 Vatican City State, Europe and to: Josepth Cardinal Ratzinger Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Piazza del S. Uffizio 11 00193 Rome, Italy

Yet another fairy tale. LOL! Very punny, theist!